TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and Safety of an Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator
AU - Friedman, Paul
AU - Murgatroyd, Francis
AU - Boersma, Lucas V.A.
AU - Manlucu, Jaimie
AU - O'Donnell, David
AU - Knight, Bradley P.
AU - Clémenty, Nicolas
AU - Leclercq, Christophe
AU - Amin, Anish
AU - Merkely, Béla P.
AU - Birgersdotter-Green, Ulrika M.
AU - Chan, Joseph Y.S.
AU - Biffi, Mauro
AU - Knops, Reinoud E.
AU - Engel, Greg
AU - Muñoz Carvajal, Ignacio
AU - Epstein, Laurence M.
AU - Sagi, Venkata
AU - Johansen, Jens B.
AU - Sterliński, Maciej
AU - Steinwender, Clemens
AU - Hounshell, Troy
AU - Abben, Richard
AU - Thompson, Amy E.
AU - Wiggenhorn, Christopher
AU - Willey, Sarah
AU - Crozier, Ian
AU - Extravascular ICD Pivotal Study Investigators
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.
PY - 2022/10/6
Y1 - 2022/10/6
N2 - BACKGROUND: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has a single lead implanted substernally to enable pause-prevention pacing, antitachycardia pacing, and defibrillation energy similar to that of transvenous ICDs. The safety and efficacy of extravascular ICDs are not yet known. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-group, nonrandomized, premarket global clinical study involving patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, all of whom received an extravascular ICD system. The primary efficacy end point was successful defibrillation at implantation. The efficacy objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was greater than 88%. The primary safety end point was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months. The safety objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients free from such complications was greater than 79%. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were enrolled, 316 of whom had an implantation attempt. Among the 302 patients in whom ventricular arrhythmia could be induced and who completed the defibrillation testing protocol, the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was 98.7% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 96.6%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 88%); 299 of 316 patients (94.6%) were discharged with a working ICD system. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients free from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months was 92.6% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 89.0%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 79%). No major intraprocedural complications were reported. At 6 months, 25 major complications were observed, in 23 of 316 patients (7.3%). The success rate of antitachycardia pacing, as assessed with generalized estimating equations, was 50.8% (95% CI, 23.3 to 77.8). A total of 29 patients received 118 inappropriate shocks for 81 arrhythmic episodes. Eight systems were explanted without extravascular ICD replacement over the 10.6-month mean follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective global study, we found that extravascular ICDs were implanted safely and were able to detect and terminate induced ventricular arrhythmias at the time of implantation. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04060680.).
AB - BACKGROUND: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has a single lead implanted substernally to enable pause-prevention pacing, antitachycardia pacing, and defibrillation energy similar to that of transvenous ICDs. The safety and efficacy of extravascular ICDs are not yet known. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-group, nonrandomized, premarket global clinical study involving patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, all of whom received an extravascular ICD system. The primary efficacy end point was successful defibrillation at implantation. The efficacy objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was greater than 88%. The primary safety end point was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months. The safety objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients free from such complications was greater than 79%. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were enrolled, 316 of whom had an implantation attempt. Among the 302 patients in whom ventricular arrhythmia could be induced and who completed the defibrillation testing protocol, the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was 98.7% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 96.6%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 88%); 299 of 316 patients (94.6%) were discharged with a working ICD system. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients free from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months was 92.6% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 89.0%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 79%). No major intraprocedural complications were reported. At 6 months, 25 major complications were observed, in 23 of 316 patients (7.3%). The success rate of antitachycardia pacing, as assessed with generalized estimating equations, was 50.8% (95% CI, 23.3 to 77.8). A total of 29 patients received 118 inappropriate shocks for 81 arrhythmic episodes. Eight systems were explanted without extravascular ICD replacement over the 10.6-month mean follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective global study, we found that extravascular ICDs were implanted safely and were able to detect and terminate induced ventricular arrhythmias at the time of implantation. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04060680.).
KW - Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy
KW - Defibrillators, Implantable/adverse effects
KW - Electric Countershock/adverse effects
KW - Humans
KW - Prospective Studies
KW - Treatment Outcome
U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa2206485
DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa2206485
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 36036522
AN - SCOPUS:85138165470
SN - 0028-4793
VL - 387
SP - 1292
EP - 1302
JO - The New England Journal of Medicine
JF - The New England Journal of Medicine
IS - 14
ER -